Need advise on lenses

[migsba]

Hi, i need some advise on what lens to get for portraits. I'm quite new to digital camera's, or camera's in general for that matter so I'm quite puzzled on what kind of lens to get. I have a canon d20 without any lens on it.... I'm basically going to use it for taking pictures of my family, friends and travel. I read some articles and reviews on the EF 28-135 and the EFS 17-85... are they good? If so which one is better for portraits? If not, what can you guys recommend?

Thanks

[Cowgirl]

The average range that I use for portaits is 85 -135, unless its a group, then I use a 16-35 2.8, or a 17-40 F4. Yes, I have also used a 50 1.8 for portraits, and it does work too.

The 28-135 IS is a good starter or everyday lens, and the IS does help in low light situations. My assistant usually uses mine, and its on a backup camera for weddings.

The 85 1.8 is also a well know sharp and fast lens that is used often for portraits.


If you are only going to buy one lens, then I would get the 28-135 IS, just because of the longer range for traveling and the IS feature.

The 17-85 is a bit short for travel/everyday use.

Kathy

[Peter_AUS]

The EFS 17-85 is designed to take into account the digital image chip of the camera and only specifically fits those cameras that are designed for the EFS lenses. If you tried to use it on cameras that it wasn't designed for you might damage the lens.

The 28-135 IS lens is a good lens especially as a walk around lens and is very good in my experience with this lens but that is on a 10D, should be similar on 20D as well. A friend of mine uses it as his lens for weddings but his is a film camera but along the same lines as the 10D (an EOS30/Elan 7 camera) and gets very nice images with it and makes a good living from his photography. The only problem wiht the 28-135 lens is that it stops down only to f3.5 so you might need something that goes to f/1.8 like a 50mm f/1.8 lens which would be equivalent to 80mm on a 20D, good for portraiture head/shoulder shots and would give a good blurred background as well. Something that is a little harder on teh 28-135 lens at its widest aperture, in my experience.

Kathy is correct in saying that the norm for portraiture lenses seems to fall in the range of 80-135mm lenses but a lot use prime lenses, i.e. an 80mm lens, 100mm lens or 135mm lens, but others use the zoom lenses as they seem to give a better aspect to the photo, allowing to work from a further away distance but being able to zoom in closer to the subject without the distortion of some lenses.

[Lionheart]

imho-they'll both work out fine. The 17-85 EF-S was designed to be the dslr equivalent of the 28-135 (1.6x cropping factor of the 20D/rebel xt times the 17-85 = 27.2mm to 136mm in terms of 35mm equivalent). The 28-135 becomes a 44.8mm to 216mm equivalent in 35mm with the 1.6 x cropping factor of the 20D. All depends on how much wide angle you need versus short telephoto range. The big plus of the 28-135 is image stabilization, really does work well, but you'll lose quite a bit on the wide angle side of the lens. I've had the 28-135 IS lens, it's a fine lens, very sharp, You can't go wrong either way, but my vote goes to the 28-135 just because of the longer tele end plus IS.

[migsba]

Thanks guys for the advise. I guess it's the 28-135 then, though i am still to be familiarized with the terminolgy of photography, which i am now doing... thanks to a buddy of mine who is giving me a crash course on photography. He too recommends the 28-135 by the way so I guess it's unanimous. Again thanks guys...

Migs

[adina]

I like the 28-70 f/2.8 L. It's a bit pricey, and heavy as all hell, but if you can swing it, it's worth it. On the other end of the scale, I've been using the 50mm f/1.8 for the past year for everything, and it's only like $70. I use the 20d as well, and anything I've posted in the past year, with the exception of anything posted in the last two weeks, was with the 50mm.

adina

[Liz]

The 28-135 is a great all around lens and good in low light.

If you can afford the 50mm/f1.8 ($70) along with it, I'd suggest this one for portraits - you can use the 28-135 but the 50mm is a prime, sharp, good color, etc. so I would consider both.

Liz

Thanks guys for the advise. I guess it's the 28-135 then, though i am still to be familiarized with the terminolgy of photography, which i am now doing... thanks to a buddy of mine who is giving me a crash course on photography. He too recommends the 28-135 by the way so I guess it's unanimous. Again thanks guys...

Migs